What is their argument for the eviction ban? Why do they believe it is just?
The CDC’s argument was that evicting people would increase their risk of catching COVID. The court ruled that the CDC does not have the authority to prevent evictions.
Good decision
1 Like
Agreed, the CDC or any unelected government agency does not and should not have the authority to impose such. I’m just not keen on the implication that congress has the authority to do it.
2 Likes
The dissenting argument highlights one of the major differences between LIB justices and CON justices. CON justices argued the rule of law. LIB justices argued emotion. This should have been a unanimous decision for the rule of law.
1 Like
They will do it by proxy. They will just close the eviction courts do to covid
There are plenty of decisions made by con justices that use emotion rather than rule of law. Scalias little tidbit about slippery slope of homosexual rights comes to mind. Pure emotion
Activist judges just means judges people don’t agree with.
Still a good decision
Good point.
Not even remotely true. The constitution doesn’t single out homosexuals for special rights. A strict interpretation of the law is what this was about. LIB emotions made up some non-existent rights. LGBT was already protected by existing legislation, there is no need to single out individual races, sexual orientations, etc. for special protection. That is LIB pandering to single issue activists.
No real disagreement here.
Agree, but my point stands.
1 Like
What does this even mean?
WW
Maybe you could be more specific. 
Are you talking marriage laws that specifically barred same sex couple from marrying in the same way as different sex couples as those which provided homosexuals “special protections”?
Or maybe you are talking about public accommodation laws that “single out individual races, sexual orientations, etc. for special protection”, because if you are I’d like to see those PA laws as none that I know of single out specific races or sexual orientations?
WW
I was talking more about workplace discrimination protection.
The laws you reference were argued by both sides coherently as a 14th amendment issue. Scalia dissented in those decisions for what he felt were originalist constitutional reasons, not out of emotional reasons as proposed by @FreeAndClear. That was the point I was attempting to make.
But it spreads faster indoors.
Felt…. That’s emotion.
They could do like the old days and go and try to pass something in the house instead of using the executive branch as a sledge hammer.
2 Likes
The right decrying the expansion of the executive after full throat support of its expansion is wonderful to watch.
Unitary executive during that administration you guys forget you supported was an actual thing
Actually FELT was my characterization. The articles I read made it clear that Scalia’s dissents were based on his originalist interpretation of the constitution, not emotion.
Except the part where he started bringing up things like pederasty and zoophilia. The quote literally says end of MORAL legislation.
Pure emotion
There is nothing in the constitution about legislating morality.
Both sides abuse it, it doesn’t make it right. We were never supposed to be ruled by EO’s and they should be regulated to renaming state parks only.
Congress doesn’t want their name on any vote they get paid for doing absolutely nothing or as Clinton’s former advisor Paul Begala said “ Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool”.
